Donate today to keep Global Voices strong!

Our global community of volunteers work hard every day to bring you the world's underreported stories -- but we can't do it without your help. Support our editors, technology, and advocacy campaigns with a donation to Global Voices!

When Hiddink led the Korean soccer team into the semifinals of the 2002 World Cup he became a hero in Korea. Everywhere – in bookstores and on advertisements – was his face. People were busy talking about his leadership and fresh thought. He was harshly criticized by the media early on when he was hired for the 2002 World Cup. His different style of recruiting players and training them brought suspicions that he would destroy the Korean team. But the result led Koreans to think about what real leadership is. His training style was analyzed in books and applied to the economy and politics. And six years later, he is making another miracle in Euro 2008.

Now Koreans miss Hiddink in a different way.

Many netizens miss his leadership and interpret it in the current chaotic politics in Korea.

He’s amazing. Hiddink, he shook the world again. He let Russia, the edge of European soccer, join the semifinal of Euro 2008. Again people talk about ‘magic’ and ‘miracle.’ All over the world, people are surprised with his magic and compliment his leadership. What is his strategy? There is no ‘magic.’ He also doesn’t have a magician’s power. His miracle is the result of efforts. There is one everyone agrees on. It’s ‘motivation.’ He provides motivation to players and therefore each player can maximize his potential. It seems that everyone recognizes his excellent ability to transfer the potential through his organizing ability.

There are so many episodes. The one that he sent Russian player, Ignashevich, back home because he was late to a training course is similar with Romário de Souza Faria’s story in PSV eindhoven. In Euro 2008, the story that he excluded the best Russian player, Arshavin, from the team is similar with Hong Myung Bo’s story in Korea. He treated players who work hard equally. He didn’t care about reputation and criticisms. He put everyone on the same starting line and analyzed them. Its result was Park Ji Sung and Kim Nam Il. He made them from no-name value players to the major players of the team.

People can just call it ‘psychological warfare’ and as the skill of how to deal with players. Hiddink shared everything with his players. He played with them and became their friends. He walked with them together. Sometimes, he was praising his team a little bit too much and regardless of sneers from people around him he didn’t care. He imparted organizing ability and unity.

And then, he trusted. Players are the ones who play on the ground. He trusted his players.

I would like to summarize. Hiddink’s leadership is not hierarchical leadership. His is not the Messiah style. His leadership is horizontal leadership. Not dragging players, he pulls motivation out of the players’ minds and supports them.

There is another one who is overlapped. President Lee. When he was Seoul Mayor, he took his son wearing shorts and sandals to the public place in order to let his son take the photo together. I’m not talking about that. I think about the big difference of their leadership. So far, President Lee hasn’t given ‘motivation.’ Not only disregarding peoples’ volunteering participation, but he also didn’t lead the volunteering contribution from his secretaries and cabinet. He just showed ‘force.’ Like some people said, he even did what other department managers should do. Rather than encouraging ‘motivation’ and ‘creativity,’ he made a trend where everyone studies others. He even didn’t show the ‘practical’ leadership that he emphasized. He appointed people he is familiar with. Even people who have immoral work were not kicked out due to the relations with him. He even didn’t show the leadership of ‘unity’ He didn’t have communication and discussion. When he dealt with argumentative policies, he chose secret propulsion rather than public discussion. If people are opposed to his policies, he just said ‘misunderstanding.’ So far, that’s what he has done. That’s what he has shown us as leadership. How about the future? Will it change?

Then, it will be great. As a matter of fact, three months of five years of his governance is pretty short. If he can show a new kind of leadership from now on, it could be better. […]

[…]Let’s think about the national hero, Hiddink in 2002. At first when he had several games, there were so many opinions that we should get rid of him because the game results were not satisfying. Do you remember? If we switched Hiddink, would it be possible to have 2002 glory? Nobody can be perfect. It will be applied to the President and people around him. Of course, people who have the authority to be able to change the country should be more cautious and consider that their decision with a small matter also could bring big influence on the people. In that matter, he had the problem. But he has been the president just for 100 days. We let him work for 100 days, change to the other person because we don’t like him, and change to a new one again if we don’t like… People who really insist on his resignation…. Do they really want his resignation?

I am sure that he realized keenly people’s powers are strong. And the bulldozer style that he pushes forward is not going to work in this time. Why don’t we give one more chance to him? Didn’t we select him with our hands? Even though he is not morally perfect, we chose him in the hope of betterment. In order to have a better economy, he dealt with the beef negotiation for FTA. He didn’t do a good job. So we speak out that he should quit. It’s thoughtless. What will we do after his resignation? In such a difficult time, to whom will we ask to take care of the country?

It’s easy to criticize, but criticism without alternatives is irresponsibility.